The best motivator to bring about open PVP is control. Control over stuff such as prime grinding spots and bosses - and preferably bosses that actually require effort and are worth killing. The current "bosses" are a joke.

Currently I don't think there is enough to dispute over for open PVP, voucher bosses aren't enough and grinding is a joke - everyone is capped, and for gold/drops, you are best to grind in the temple.

As far as pvp is, I'd like to see everyone outside of guild toggled, and later on extended to everyone outside of alliance.

I agree for the most part, but there's a fine line between what's healthy for the guild, and what's healthy for the loner-player. A large majority of any healthy game are actually the loners. If developments soley cater to a guild structure, that only servers to shrink the player base, and reduce future guild potential recruits.

Faction Based PK would be optimum. Toggle on and off options for Guild would be acceptable. But we'd need an option for those who don't fit into those categories too.

I've been thinking about ideal pvp environments, and recently I had a new idea.

Why don't games allow guilds, and factions to vote on when they want to declare war on one another?

Think about it. If DKO had strong PVE content, and followed the normal flow of war, it would not have scheduled castle sieges, and it would not have scheduled faction wars.

Instead, Leaders (or the entire faction(s)) would vote on whether or not to spill blood. That way, Guilds could vote to go into full out war on a guild, or you could decide when pvp was too bold or adventurous to a game's health. You could have peace times, and war times.

I think DKO with its lack of real pvp would lend well to this idea.

All it would require is an alteration to the instance queuing programs, to "sign up" for the war, and then an advance warning to the entity war is declared upon, that there is a battle coming, and to prepare.

And, if a Guild loses a war and begs for armistice, the winning guild would possibly gain some property (a castle or money) in exchange for a cease-fire.

I don't understand why no Medieval game has really integrated a real war simulator like this.

Rekikyos idea is good too, but I do not prefer having peaceful times If I decide to play a Massively PvP oriented for the sake of everyday PvPing.

Heh more often than not you would get your wish. Real war doesn't take consent of both parties to battle. If Eos wanted war but Dione didn't, there would be war. The reason I leave that option in there, is because truces do occur when losing frequently becomes repetitive and depressing (which would occur). Also, I'm not necessarily suggesting Ruemon should change, or even some castle sieges (I do not like Castle Siege in it's current incarnation: it feels like we're "renting" a castle to play paintball; like a tourist attraction. It doesn't feel like a home). In other words, you'd still have pvp even during a truce, just not as much.

That being said, there are alot of potential enemies if you include Both Faction vs Faction and Guild versus Guild in the warring options. Even if Factions created a truce, that does not mean Requiem and Darkened Hearts for example, would not be at war.

It would make sense if we would get the political system and a battleground to fight.

Alliance vs Alliance and Guild vs Guild battlegrounds should be instanced though, for the sake of different guilds or alliances being in war with guilds/alliances you declared piece with, but all fighting on the same battleground, does not make sense.